Login
Ratjoy.com » Forums » Ratjoy.com General Discussion » 5/6 ANNOUNCEMENT

5/6 ANNOUNCEMENT


Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] Next
A J
RJ: amanbearpig
CO: aManBearPig

Post Rating: 0
+ / -

Total Posts: 54
Karma: 18
Joined: Mar 30, 2012
I completely agree Victoria. While it is all well and good to say Walter did not alter price levels, cause inflation, give himself massive bonuses, etc, if - as Scott says - he would be completely fine with anyone doing this, then there is a massive problem.

This money does not sit in a vacuum. If the only way to legitimately compete is to cheat (or employ a bug - however you wish to phrase it), then anyone who is trying/caring will do the same.

This money will not just sit in their accounts! It in fact cannot sit there in the bank, if the game and market are to remain playable. If no one buys anything, everything becomes static and...whats the point? To see who can pump out the most shares to get the highest NW? The whole point of money is to spend it.
Richard Ripberger
RJ: Rip
CO: Rip

Post Rating: 17
+ / -

Total Posts: 153
Karma: 78
Joined: Mar 28, 2012
and thus why the game is better off without a stock market. I miss chat more than I would stocks.
Michael Tsui
RJ: Reisen
CO: Reisen Udongein Inaba

Post Rating: 0
+ / -

Total Posts: 45
Karma: 30
Joined: Apr 26, 2012
I don't know. If I have the money, I would also buy out an entire market - especially if it is an essential infrastructure like power and water.

There is a reason why monopolies makes the most money.
Andrew Naples
RJ: Clemen Salad
CO: Clemen

Post Rating: 4
+ / -

Total Posts: 214
Karma: 89
Joined: Apr 26, 2012
"I completely agree Victoria. While it is all well and good to say Walter did not alter price levels, cause inflation, give himself massive bonuses, etc, if - as Scott says - he would be completely fine with anyone doing this, then there is a massive problem. "

Walter actually gave himself 6.5G if you look at the revenue sheet.
Urist Esterar
RJ: Uristqwerty
CO: Uristqwerty

Post Rating: 6
+ / -

Total Posts: 5
Karma: 15
Joined: Apr 11, 2012
Well, if you bought out an entire market with money you gained through means that would unanimously be considered legitimate, people might not necessarily like what you did, but they wouldn't accuse you of cheating, and hopefully not of breaking/ruining the game.

If, however, the funds you used were from a questionably legal, or outright illegal, source, there would be an issue. Especially if the source of the money you used was an exploit in the game that allowed you to temporarily acquire near limitless wealth (even if, shortly afterwards, the game naturally balances against it).

Another consideration is that, if you were aiming for a monopoly with long term plans, you wouldn't buy the horridly overpriced goods alongside the more reasonably priced ones, so other people would be far less able to make a massive profit off your actions.

Monopoly backed by legitimate income? Probably fine. Monopoly backed by illegally acquired funds, with no long-term intentions? Clearly problematic.
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] Next


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments.